Friday Fun

Experts say that were it not for an all white male engineering staff, America's NASA would likely not have been able to successfully fool the entire world with their fake moon landing project.

Ages of the world

 The Venerable Bede. 

1: Adam to Noah - Infancy

The First Age of this world is from Adam to Noah containing 1,656 years according to the Hebrew Truth and 2,242 according to the Septuagint, and ten generations according to both versions. This, the First Age, was wiped out in the universal Flood, just as the first age of every individual is usually submerged in oblivion, for how many people can remember their infancy.

2: Noah to Abraham - Childhood

The Second Age from Noah to Abraham comprises ten generations and 292 years according to the Hebrew authority, but according to the Septuagint 272 years and eleven generations. This was, so to speak, the childhood of God's people, and therefore it is discovered in a language, that is, in Hebrew, because from childhood on, when infancy is over - which is so called because an infant cannot speak - a person begins to learn to speak.

3: Abraham to David - Adolescence

The Third Age from Abraham to David contains fourteen generations and 942 years according to both authorities. This age was like the adolescence of the people of God, because from this age on, a person can reproduce. For this reason, the evangelist Matthew takes the beginning of the generations of Christ from Abraham, who was established as the father of the nation when he received his altered name.

4: David to Exile in Babylon - Youth

The Fourth Age from David up to the Exile to Babylon has 473 years according to Hebrew Truth, twelve more according to the Sepuagint, and seventeen generations according to both texts. However, the evangelist Matthew puts these generations at fourteen, for the sake of a certain symbolism. From this age - youth, so to speak - the era of the kings began among the people of God, for this age in man is normally apt for governing a kingdom.

5: Exile to the Coming of Christ - Maturity

The Fifth Age - maturity, if you will, from the Exile into Babylon until the coming of our Lord and Saviour in the flesh, extends for fourteen generations and 589 years. In this Age the Hebrew people were weakened by many evils, as if wearied by heavy age.

6: Current - Senility

The Sixth Age, which is now in progress, is not fixed according to any sequence of generations or times, but like senility, this Age will come to an end in the death of the whole world.

7 and 8: The Eternal Sabbath and Resurrection

By a happy death, everyone will overcome these Ages of the world and when they have been received into the Seventh Age of perennial Sabbath, they look forward to the Eighth Age of the blessed resurrection, in which they will reign forever with the Lord.

For the best science based harricaine coverage stick with Fox News

 

Sex or gender?

Doctors remove the sexual organs of kids who claim to be of a different sex than they obviously are.

Doctors never remove gender organs.

Entries in the Syllabus of Errors or the modern ecumenical program of Vatican Two and the Papacy ?

 https://www.papalencyclicals.net/pius09/p9syll.htm

III. INDIFFERENTISM, LATITUDINARIANISM

15. Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true. — Allocution “Maxima quidem,” June 9, 1862; Damnatio “Multiplices inter,” June 10, 1851.

16. Man may, in the observance of any religion whatever, find the way of eternal salvation, and arrive at eternal salvation. — Encyclical “Qui pluribus,” Nov. 9, 1846.

17. Good hope at least is to be entertained of the eternal salvation of all those who are not at all in the true Church of Christ. — Encyclical “Quanto conficiamur,” Aug. 10, 1863, etc.

18. Protestantism is nothing more than another form of the same true Christian religion, in which form it is given to please God equally as in the Catholic Church. — Encyclical “Noscitis,” Dec. 8, 1849.

The Jews are the biggest mass murderers in history

Alexander Solzhenitsyn wrote: “You must understand. The . . . Bolsheviks who took over Russia were not Russians. They hated Russians! They hated Christians! Driven by ethnic hatred they tortured & slaughtered millions of Russians without a shred of human remorse. The October Revolution was not what you call in America the ‘Russian Revolution’. It was an invasion & conquest over the Russian people. More of my countrymen suffered horrific crimes at the blood-stained hands than any people, or nation ever suffered in the entirety of human history. It cannot be understated! Bolshevism was the greatest human slaughter of all time. The fact that most of the world is ignorant of this reality is proof that the global media itself is in the hands of the perpetrators. We cannot state that all Jews are Bolsheviks, but without Jews there would have been no Bolshevism. For a Jew, nothing is more insulting than the truth. The blood-maddened Jewish terrorists murdered 66 million in Russia from 1918 to 1957.”[15]

https://www.unz.com/lromanoff/stalins-jews/

Friday Fun

Cocomelon Kids Collection

JJ wonders why his friend DD (Depressed Debbie) hasn't been showing-up at the playground.

Dom Guersanger observation that is apt for our epoch

 https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07058a.htm

To return to our Apostle. St. Thomas had heard St. Mary Magdalene, and he despised her testimony; he had heard St. Peter, and he objected to his authority; he had heard the rest of his fellow-Apostles and the two disciples of Emmaus, and no, he would not give up his own opinion. How many there are among us who are like him in this! They never think of doubting what is told them by a truthful and disinterested witness, unless the subject touch upon the supernatural; and then they have a hundred difficulties. It is one of the sad consequences left in us by original sin. Like St. Thomas, they want to see the thing themselves: and that alone is enough to keep them from the fullness of the truth. St. Thomas saw the happiness of his brother-Apostles, but he considered it to be a weakness of mind, and was glad that he was free from it!

How like this is to a modern rationalistic "Catholic!" He believes, but it is because his reason almost forces him to believe; he believes with his mind, rather than from his heart. His faith is a scientific deduction and not a generous longing after God and supernatural truth. Hence how cold and powerless is this faith! How cramped and ashamed! How afraid of believing too much! Unlike the generous unstinted faith of the saints, it is satisfied with fragments of truth, with what the Scripture terms diminished truths (Ps. 11: 2). It seems ashamed of itself. It speaks in a whisper, lest it should be criticized; and when it does venture to make itself heard, it adopts a phraseology which may take off the sound of the divine. As to those miracles which it wishes had never taken place, and which it would have advised God not to work, they are a forbidden subject. The very mention of a miracle, particularly if it have happened in more recent times, puts it into a state of nervousness. The lives of the saints, their heroic virtues, their sublime sacrifices—it has a repugnance to the whole thing! It talks gravely about those who are not of the true religion having been unjustly dealt with by the Church in Catholic countries; it asserts that the same liberty ought to be granted to error as to truth; it has very serious doubts whether the world has been a great loser by the secularization of society.

America's rogue intelligent agencies

 Since the Church Committee (Frank Church, Idaho Senator) findings in the 1970s, America's 666 intelligence agencies have one gotten even more intrusive, secretive and indefensible.

Just for the hell of it I did some digging on the findings of The Church Committee (Conservatives LOVED the CIA back in the day) and I came across the sworn testimony of this arrogant SOB, Richard Helms, who destroyed evidence of the CIA's mind control program among other nefarious deeds.

He belonged in the slammer.

During the recent debate in the House of Representatives on the publication of the CIA's budget Congressman Koch described an encounter with DCI Helms, in which Congressman Koch asked about the size of the CIA budget and the number of CIA employees, questions that DCI Helms told Congressman Koch "we don't answer." 

As Congressman Koch described it, he then asked Mr. Helms "Are you telling me that I, a Member of Congress, do not have the right to know what the budget is, so that when I vote, I do not know what I am voting on?" DCI Helms said, "Yes . . . The item is placed in some other larger item, and you do not know." 

Congressman Koch then asked, "Do you mean that it might be included under Social Security?", to which DCI Helms replied, "We have not used that one yet, but that is not a bad idea." 

Cong. Rec. H9359, daily ed., 10/1/75, remarks of Rep., Koch.)

When you hear members of The GOP on Tucker Carlson complaining abut the Deep State and the putative illegal actions of the intelligence agencies check to see if that elected official voted for re-authorisation of The Patriot Act.

Vox Cantoris struggling mightily to convince us a protestant Queen is likely in Heaven

 Invincible ignorance reduces culpability. Natural law can allow one to find God. If one does not find God and His Salvation in Christ through no fault of their own before death, the Church teaches that they might be/can be saved. That is up to God. For a baptized Christian/Catholic, such as Elizabeth II, it may be more unclear.

Vox claims it is your job to pray for her.

Our job is to pray that in spite of her errors and personal sin, God will show her mercy and save her soul.

Yes, it is on you readers :)

I notice he has not bestirred his own self to note that to whom much is given much is expected.

He does, however, spend a lot of time quoting excerpts from Vatican Two.

There is a Traditional Morning Offering I have prayed for well over one-half of a century.

Pray for the dead Queen? Been there. Done that... But one does not just pray for the rich and famous:

O my God I offer Thee all my prayers, works, joys and sufferings in union with the Sacred Heart of Jesus, for the intentions for which He pleads and offers Himself in the holy sacrifice of the Mass, in thanksgiving for Thy favors, in reparation for my offenses, and in humble supplication for my temporal and eternal welfare, for the wants of our holy Mother the Church, for the conversion of sinners, and for the relief of the poor souls in purgatory.

I wish to gain all the indulgences attached to the prayers I shall say, and to the good works I shall perform this day. 

Maximum leaders and little girls

 

 

Our Nation's Capitol

 

Whenever I am  asked about our nation's capital, I reply that our Nation's Capital is Rome and if'n'ya

are a Christian Catholic, you must go to visit our Nation's Capital. It will change your life - forever.

But you are a chosen generation; a kingly priesthood, a holy nation, a purchased people; that you may declare his virtues, who has called you out of darkness in to marvelous light

Is Pope Francis in continuity with his predecessors when it comes to ecumenism ?

 Were you surprised to hear Pope Francis say that God wills all religions (thus even false religions) and have you been surprised to hear him say there is no worry about giving protestants Holy Communion?

Well, what about his claim that The Orthodox are one of our two lungs?

OK, then what about him giving relics of Saint Peter to The Orthodox?

Don't be to surprised by what Pope Francis is saying or doing, he is just following in the footsteps of those who preceded him....even though he is doing similar things far more openly and clearly and with far less subtlety than his predecessors.

extract from Sodalitium, 1993

by Rev. Francesco Ricossa

Benedict XVI’s 1993 program for a one-world ecumenical church.

It would have gone unnoticed by all but the insiders, if the review 30 Days and the newspaper Il Sabato had not given it some publicity. It is fortunate that they did. What I intend to discuss is the meeting which the “Cardinal Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith”, Joseph Ratzinger, held in Rome on January 29, 1993, at the evangelical cultural center of the local Waldensian community. The complete text of the meeting between Ratzinger and Professor Paolo Ricca, a Waldensian, can be found in the review 30 Days, No. 2, 1993, pp. 66–73. The title chosen by the editors for the article is significant — “Ratzinger, the Ecumenical Prefect”. One should also read the interview of the Lutheran theologian Oscar Cullmann by Il Sabato No. 8, February 20, 1993, pp. 61—63, which was given the title, likewise a significant one, “The Son of Luther and His Eminence”.

For the readers of Sodalitium I will present a summary of “Cardinal” Ratzinger’s ideas about the Church and ecumenism. It was this same Ratzinger who honored Bishop Guérard des Lauriers by “excommunicating” him. Anyone who wishes may verify the sources in the publications mentioned above, and see for himself whether or not it is the Catholic faith which Ratzinger now professes.

Cullmann speaks through Ratzinger

When Pope St. Leo the Great intervened at the Council of Calcedon by means of his legates, the Council fathers said: “Peter speaks by the mouth of Leo”. Having read the text of Ratzinger’s meeting with the Waldensians and Cullmann’s interview, one can say that Cullmann is speaking through Ratzinger. The words are Ratzinger’s, but the ideas are Cullmann’s. No wonder then that the Waldensians agree with him 99 percent, if not 100 percent (Ricca, 30 Days, p. 69).

But Who is Cullmann?

Cullmann was born in Strasbourg in 1902, in the homeland of the Protestant reformer Bucer, whom Cullmann readily makes reference to. (Il Sabato, p. 61). His sees in his birth in the province of Alsace an act of divine providence, since that region is half Protestant, half Catholic. He studied theology “under the guidance of Loisy at Paris” (Ardusso, Ferretti, Pastore, Perone. La Teologia Contemporanea, Marietti 1980, p. 108). The excommunicated modernist Scripture scholar could not have been a good teacher. Bultmann, the great “de—mythologizer” of the Gospels (Il Sabato, p. 63), was assuredly worse. It was to Bultmann that he presented his doctoral thesis on “Formgeschichte”, a method of exegesis invented by Bultmann. “Bultmann said that it was the best presentation of his Formgeschichte” (p. 63). Cullmann later broke “sharply” away from Bultmann, because the latter interpolated the Scriptures by means of existentialist philosophy, whereas Cullmann did not accept any interpolation. Yet Cullmann did not at all abandon the Protestant interpretation of Holy Scripture, or the “Literary Forms Method” (Formgeschichte) of Bultmann, according to which the task of the exegete is to discover the essential nucleus of the Bible: Cullmann sees it as the history of salvation” (Ardusso, op. cit., p. 110).

He taught as a professor of the independent faculty of Protestant theology at the Sorbonne in Paris (1948—72), among other places, and was later a member of the Waldensian theological faculty at Rome. He took part in the Second Vatican Council as an observer, and Paul VI called him “one of my best friends” (Il Sabato, p. 62). “During Vatican II, Cullmann, who was a personal guest of the Secretariat for the Unity of Christians, aided in determining the scriptural, christocentric and historical orientation of conciliar theology…more recently, Cullmann has proposed a model for a ‘Community of Churches’ in his work Unity Through Diversity (Brescia, 1988). Ratzinger praised this model during his meeting with the Waldensians of Rome on January 29” (p. 62).

He knew Ratzinger during the Council, and considered him “the best of the so–called periti, the experts…with the reputation for being an avant-garde progressive” (ibid. p. 63). From that time on they corresponded with each other, at first with regard to exegetical problems; later, states Cullmann: “We corresponded more frequently, and increasingly turned our attention to a discussion of my proposed model of ‘unity by means of diversity’, and as we mentioned earlier, the Cardinal has praised this model both in private and in public” (p. 63). Cullmann looks back with particular pleasure to a letter which he received from Ratzinger stating “I have always learned” from your works, “even when I was not in agreement with you”. This Cullmann sees this as a sign of their “unity in diversity” (ibid. p. 63). “Cullmann’s mission…is to number himself among those who have contributed the most to the dialogue between Catholics and Protestants” (Ardusso, op. cit., p. 112), though he himself remains firmly attached to heresy, explicitly denying the infallibility of the Catholic Church, and the primacy of jurisdiction of Peter and his successors (cf. Ardusso, op. cit., p. 112; Il Sabato, p. 62). Thus he is a bridge between Catholics and Protestants…in order to make the Catholics become protestants, and at the same time having them believe that they are still Catholic: “united” yes, but …“in diversity”.

Ratzinger’s Speech to the Waldensians

Having taught at Rome in the Waldensian theological institute, Cullmann of course knew the Waldensians in Rome. Perhaps he was the one who suggested to his “disciple” Ratzinger that they would make a good audience for his speech explaining and disseminating their common ideas.

The topic of Ratzinger’s meeting with Professor Ricca on January 29 was twofold. It primarily concerned ecumenism in general and its solution to the question of the papacy, which is needed in order to revive the ecumenical movement, now in a crisis. It also discussed how we can bear common witness to the faith.

I will sum up Ratzinger’s thoughts, then discuss them individually in greater detail:

1. Ecumenism is necessary, fundamental, and indisputable
2. The papacy is the hindrance to ecumenical progress
3. The ultimate aim of the ecumenical movement is “The unity of the churches within the Church”.
4. This ultimate aim will be achieved in ways as yet to us unknown.
5. The more immediate goal of ecumenism is an intermediate step, that is, the model proposed by Cullmann of “unity in diversity”.
6. This intermediate step will be reached through a continual “return to the essentials.”
7. This “return to the essentials” will be aided by a reciprocal purification on the part of the churches.

1. Ecumenism

“Ecumenism is irreversible”, as Karol Wojtyla loves to repeat. Joseph Ratzinger goes even further: “God is the primary agent of the ecumenical movement” and “ecumenism is more than anything else a fundamental attitude, a way of living the Christian faith. It is not just one particular aspect of the faith among many others. The desire for unity and the commitment to it both belong to the structure of the same act of faith because Christ came to unite the children of God who were dispersed” (30 Days, p. 68). Ecumenism (or reunification of christians as Pius XI called it) is not perceived as a “return of the dissidents to the one true Church of Christ, from which they had the misfortune to separate themselves at some point in the past” (Pius XI, Encyclical Letter Mortalium Animos, Jan. 6, 1928), or merely one method or undertaking among others of the Church’s activity. It is an essential element of Christian life and part of the act of faith itself. According to Ratzinger, one cannot have the Faith without being ecumenical; yet according to Pope Pius XI, one cannot have the Faith and be an ecumenist:

To favor this opinion [ecumenism], therefore, and to encourage such undertakings is tantamount to abandoning the religion revealed by God. 

(Pius XI, Mortalium Animos)

Ricca, the Waldensian, clearly addresses the problem (nor does Ratzinger contradict him):

The crisis of the ecumenical movement is essentially due to the fact that the churches have not changed sufficiently for ecumenical purposes….For ecumenism certainly requires, along with the patience of which Cardinal Ratzinger spoke, some very profound changes. Once a certain point is reached, either the church will change, or progress of the ecumenical movement enters into a state of crisis….Of course, this holds true for all the churches. (30 Days, p. 71)

Hence he is saying that either the Church will perish, and ecumenism will live, or the Church will live, and ecumenism will perish ­– for if the Church changed substantially, it would perish. Now ecumenism is irreversible; therefore the “Church” as it is now, and especially the way it was before the Council, must perish. Thus we come to the question of the papacy, which must likewise change with the Church, or perish.

2. The Papacy: “the greatest obstacle to ecumenism”

Paul VI said it, as the heretic Ricca is pleased to recall.

As everyone knows, the papacy is the crucial point of the ecumenical question, because on the one hand it is the foundation of Catholic unity, while on the other hand, if I may express myself somewhat harshly, it prevents the unity of all christians [i.e., it prevents ecumenism — F.R.]. I must say that Paul VI had the courage to clearly acknowledge this in an address in 1967, in which he said, precisely, (and I believe that he was the only pope to say this) that the papacy is the greatest obstacle to ecumenism. It was a very noble address [says a heretic! — F.R.], not only because of this admission on his part, but in its entirety. The question of the papacy has brought the ecumenical movement to a complete halt.

(30 Days, p. 70)

Therefore, if a dogma of the Faith which happens to be the “foundation of Catholic unity” is an obstacle, indeed the obstacle to ecumenism, then Paul VI, Ratzinger and all of us ought to conclude that the ecumenical movement must perish. For it is impossible that a truth revealed by Christ for the purpose of being the foundation of the unity desired by Him could at the same time be an obstacle to unity. In fact the papacy is not an obstacle, but the sole means of becoming united to the one, true Church: “Furthermore, in this one Church of Christ no man can be or remain who does not accept, recognize and obey the authority and supremacy of Peter and his legitimate successors” (Pius XI, Mortalium Animos).

 Ironically, the only one to point out that what they are discussing is in fact a dogma was the Protestant, Ricca.

Ratzinger knows this, and cannot therefore speak quite as freely as his “colleague”, as he calls Ricca. So he evades the issue at first. “I think that the papacy is without doubt the most tangible symptom of the problems we face, but it can only be properly understood when seen in a broader context. Thus I do not think that addressing this issue directly, [as was done in the preliminary notes — F.R.] will leave us with a way out” (30 Days, p. 66). In other words, if he brought up the First Vatican Council and what was defined there, this ecumenical utopia would collapse, the equivocators would distance themselves from him, as would Cullmann, and true Catholics would get wise to the whole scheme. So he beats around the bush and refers back to Cullmann’s plan for “unity in diversity”. We will discuss this further on.

Yet sooner or later Ratzinger must come back to the question of the papacy. And what does he suggest? Certainly not the primacy of jurisdiction which the Faith attributes to the pope. “According to our faith,” Ratzinger explains, “the ministry of unity has been entrusted to Peter and his successors” (30 Days, p. 68). But what does this “ministry of unity” consist of? Ratzinger does not say. For the Church it consists in the primacy of jurisdiction of the pope over all the faithful.

For Cullmann, it would consist at most — how generous of him — of a primacy of honor; this proposition is, oh by the way, heretical (DS 2593): “I believe that the petrine service is a charism of the Catholic Church, and that it is something from which we Protestants should also learn” — Cullmann says to Il Sabato — but then he continues:

The pope is the bishop of Rome and as such one could concede to him a leadership role in this scheme for a ‘community of churches’ which I have proposed. Personally I would see his role as being a guarantee of unity. He could accept this if he did not have jurisdiction over all of Christianity but a primacy of honor instead.

(30 Days, p. 62)

According to Ricca, there are three possibilities:

Either the pope remains and will remain…more or less what he is today…, in which case we must conclude that the unity will be a final gift given to us by Christ when He returns [translation: “Us, submit to the pope? Not on your life!” — F.R.], or the papacy will be altered into a type of ecumenical version of it…Hitherto the papacy has served as the center of Catholic unity; henceforth it shall be the center of unity for all christians… [in this system, the pope would be the president of a new ecumenical church — F.R.]. The third possibility, however, is that the pope will remain what he is today, yet will not claim to be the center and fulcrum point of christian unity, but only of Catholic unity…The churches could mutually recognize one another as the churches of Jesus Christ, really united to one another and really different from one another, and periodically they could all meet in a truly ecumenical council… [in this system the pope would be at the head of one christian church among the other churches united in an ecumenical council — F.R.] (30 Days, p. 70–71)

What does Ratzinger think is the role of the pope? 

As I have shown, he remains silent, or rather fails to defend the teaching of the Church (which is Ricca’s first possibility), indicating instead that the third possibility is to be a stepping stone, with the second thesis as the final goal. For the time being, Ratzinger explains how

“the orthodox [heretical and schismatical — F.R.] churches should not change much in their internal structure, almost nothing in fact, if they unite themselves with Rome,” (30 Days, p. 68) “and as far as their substance is concerned, that holds true not only for the orthodox churches, but also for those born of the Reformation” (30 Days, p. 69). 

He even went so far as to study, along with some Lutheran friends, various possible models of a “Catholic Church of the Augsburg Confession” (which follows the Protestant heresies of the Augsburg Confession, a sort of Protestant “creed” presented to Charles V by the heresiarch Melanchthon) (30 Days, p. 68)

Doesn’t all of this sound remarkably similar to the heretical proposals made by Cullmann and Ricca, and in particular to Ricca’s second model? We would have a Church presided over by a “pope” with an “orthodox” wing which would remain “orthodox”, and a Protestant wing which would remain Protestant. On the other hand, according to Ratzinger, the “orthodox” (and, mutatis mutandis, the Protestants) “have a different way of assuring the unity and stability in a common faith, different from ours in the Catholic Church of the West” (30 Days, p. 68). What Ratzinger is referring to, in the case of the “Orthodox,” is their liturgy and monasticism.

Now, who does not realize that the liturgy and monasticism among the “Orthodox”, like the Bible among the Protestants, are not sufficient to guarantee unity and the Faith? In fact, despite the liturgy, monasticism, and the Bible, they are schismatics (without unity) and heretics (without the faith)! To wish to reduce the dogmas of the Faith and the action taken to preserve them, namely the condemnations of error by the Holy Office, of which the Pope is the prefect, to characteristics peculiar not to the universal Catholic Church, but to its western (and Roman) branch, is a very serious error! And the quotes from the “orthodox” theologian Meyendorff (who criticizes universalism in its Roman form, but who also criticizes, as he says, “the regionalism as it developed in the history of the Orthodox churches”. (Ratzinger in 30 Days, p. 68) hardly serve as an assurance of the “ecumenical prelate’s” catholicity. Basically, Meyendorff is proposing the same aberration as Ricca: the churches, all of them, including the Catholic Church, must undergo a profound change to ensure the progress of ecumenism.

In short, Pius XI hit the nail on the head when he wrote:

There are indeed some who recognize and affirm that Protestantism has with inconsiderate zeal rejected certain articles of faith and external ceremonies which are in fact useful and attractive, and which the Roman Church still retains. But they immediately go on to say that the Roman Church, too, has erred, and corrupted the primitive religion by adding to it and proposing for belief doctrines not only alien to the Gospel but contrary to its spirit. Chief among these they count that of the primacy of jurisdiction granted to Peter and to his successors in the See of Rome. There are actually some, though few, who grant to the Roman Pontiff a primacy of honor and ever a certain power or jurisdiction; this, however, they consider to arise not from the divine law but merely from the consent of the faithful. Others, again, even go so far as to desire the Pontiff himself to preside over their mixed assemblies. For the rest, while you may hear many non–Catholics loudly preaching brotherly communion in Jesus Christ, yet not one will you find to whom it even occurs with devout submission to obey the Vicar of Jesus Christ in his capacity of teacher or ruler. (Pius XI, Mortalium Animos)

Reading this text, one would think the Pope were speaking of Cullmann. As is evident, the Protestants have not taken one step forward from 1928 to today, whereas we find ourselves confronted with the open–arms ecumenism of the Novus Ordo, and its “pope” racing from one “multicolored” religious meeting to another.

3. The Ultimate Aim: “Churches within the Church”

But let us return to Ratzinger. In order to avoid the problem of the papacy, he first speaks about ecumenism, whose ultimate aim is obviously the unity of the churches in the one Church (30 Days, p. 66). “We are tending towards the unity of the Church of God” (p. 67). Yet Ratzinger’s logic is flawed from the start, since if there is only one true Church, then what good are the other churches? Is this “one true Church” the Catholic Church or isn’t it? Or is the Catholic Church one of the “churches” which must unite themselves more and more to form the “one true Church”? In the first case (one true Church = the Catholic Church), the aim has already been achieved, the Church is already “one”, and ecumenism has no purpose but the abjuration on the part of heretics and schismatics of their errors, and there are only sects, conventicle “churches” which are not to unite themselves but disappear.

In the second case, (the one true Church = a more or less close union of “churches” which are more or less different from one another) Ratzinger is serving up the error condemned by Pius XI in Mortalium Animos:

And here it will be opportune to expound and to reject a certain false opinion which lies at the root of this question and of that complex movement by which non—Catholics seek to bring about the union of Christian Churches. Those who favor this view constantly quote the words of Christ, ‘That they may be one…And there shall be one fold and one shepherd‘ (John XVII: 21; X: 16), in the sense that Christ thereby merely expressed a desire or a prayer which as yet has not been granted. For they hold that the unity of faith and government, which is a note of the one true Church of Christ, has up to the present time never really existed, and does not exist today. They consider that this unity is indeed to be desired and may even, by cooperation and good will, be actually attained, but that meanwhile it must be regarded as a mere ideal. The Church, they say, is of its nature divided into sections, composed of several churches or distinct communities which still remain separate, and although holding in common some articles of doctrine, nevertheless differ concerning the remainder; that all these enjoy the same rights.

Can the “ecumenical prelate” explain himself?

 Does he believe that the one true Church of Christ already exists, and that it is the Roman Catholic Church, or not?

4. What Will the Church of the Future Be Like?

Unfortunately, I fear that he has already explained what he meant. The ultimate goal, the union of the churches within the Church, lies in a future both distant and unknown.

Therefore the goal, the aim of every ecumenical effort is to attain the real unity of the Church [doesn’t this already exist? or is it only apparent? or unreal? — F.R.], which implies a multitude of forms which we cannot yet define.

(30 Days, p. 66)

Elsewhere he states:

For the time being I do not dare suggest any concrete, possible and imaginable realizations of this future church. (30 Days, p. 68)

As a Protestant, Ricca was of course very pleased to hear Ratzinger’s ideas, for they fit in very well with his own thinking. After recalling the eight centuries of strife between Catholics and Waldensians, he added, “well then, why are we all here together? We are here together because, if it is true that we well know who we are, and know well enough who we have been, we do not know, however, who we will be. It is this very reserve on the part of Ratzinger in not proposing models, that is, the very attitude of not knowing, which binds us together”. The Waldensians and the followers of Vatican II are united — in not knowing what the future of the Church will be like! For, as Ricca explained, either the churches will change or the ecumenical movement will die out. That a Protestant admits of the idea of a yet unknown Church of the future — fine. But a Catholic? How can he possibly reconcile that with the indefectibility of the Church? What other model of the Church can he present to the protestants than the one desired by Christ and founded upon Peter? How can a “cardinal” not know what the Church ought to be like, when it was founded by Christ two thousand years ago? One could say that Ratzinger has the same notion of the Church that Teilhard has of God: the Church does not exist…yet, but it is evolving towards its omega point, the final goal of the ecumenical movement.

5. Unity in Diversity

The Church of the future, therefore, will be one (in its pluriformity). Sometime in the future. What about in the meantime? We are in an “intermediate time” (30 Days, p. 66) of “unity in diversity”. “In my opinion,” explains Ratzinger, “this model could be described by the well—known term “reconciled diversity”, which is very similar to the my dear colleague Oscar Cullmann’s thoughts on the matter” (p. 67). We have already seen what sort of model of the Church Cullmann has proposed, and later on we will hear about Ratzinger’s. Suffice it to say that Ricca readily understood the gist of Ratzinger’s proposal:

I would like to state first of all, — states Ricca — that I am 99% in agreement, if not 100%, with what Cardinal Ratzinger has had to say. Indeed, I am glad and very satisfied to hear this, for it can serve as a starting point: as you all know, this concept of reconciled diversity is of Lutheran origin.

(30 Days, p. 69)

Thus Ratzinger wishes to lead us to an unknown church of pluriformity, modeled after a Lutheran concept of the Church.

6. A Return to the Essentials

But how is this “reconciled diversity” to be attained in practice? It is not a matter, admonishes Ratzinger, of “being content with the current situation”, to resigning ourselves to the differences between us.

What is needed in this dynamic process is perseverance in

walking together, in the humility which respects the others, even where we have not yet achieved a compatibility in church doctrine or practice; it consists in the willingness to learn from each other and to accept each other’s corrections, in joy and thanksgiving for each one’s spiritual treasures, in a permanent essentialization of one’s own faith, doctrine and practice, which must be continually purified and nourished by Scripture, while we keep our eyes fixed on the Lord…

(30 Days, pp. 67–68)

How many contradictions in so few lines! How can we “walk together” if we think and act differently? How can the “seat of truth,” the Church of Christ, learn things which she does not yet know, and even be corrected, by heretics? How can the Church “respect” heresy and schism, which are sins? What distinguishes us from the protestant sects and the “Orthodox” is their very adherence to heresy and schism. Lastly, what does Ratzinger mean by “essentializing” (permanently!) the faith? This idea is at the center of his thought, and is not just his alone:

the search for the Wesen, the essence of Christianity, has been a typical search of German theology for more than a century. This search is exemplified in the works of L. Feurbach (1841), A. Harnack (1900), K. Adam (1924), R. Guardini (1939), M. Schmaus (1947), and in Karl Rahner’s recent proposal of a synthetic formulation of the Christian message. Similar to the attempts mentioned earlier, Ratzinger’s search for the essence of Christianity clearly bears the mark of its era, which has more and more come to be called “the post–christian age”. It is characterized not so much by the negation of this or that truth of the faith, but rather by the fact that the faith as a whole seems to have lost its spirit, its capacity to interpret the world, compared to other religions which seem to have been more successful in supplying its believers with an answer to the spiritual questions of our times.

(Ardusso, op. cit., p. 457)

In reality, every attempt to “essentialize” the faith risks destroying it. Pius XI wrote, in opposition to the ecumenists:

It is never lawful to employ in connection with articles faith the distinction invented by some between ‘fundamental’ and ‘non—fundamental’ articles, the former to be accepted by all, the latter being left to the free acceptance of the faithful. The supernatural virtue of faith has as its formal motive the authority of God revealing, and this allows of no such distinction. All true followers of Christ, therefore will believe the dogma of the Immaculate Conception of the Mother of God with the same faith as they believe the mystery of the august Trinity, the infallibility of the Roman Pontiff in the sense defined by the Ecumenical Vatican Council with the same faith as they believe the Incarnation of our Lord. That these truths have been solemnly sanctioned and defined by the Church at various times, some of them even quite recently, makes no difference as to their certainty, nor to our obligation of believing them. Has not God revealed them all?

(Mortalium Animos)

Ratzinger does not clearly explain what the essence of the faith is supposed to be, nor what “superstructure” is (in Ardusso, op. cit., p. 458, what is essential is to “present oneself as the church of the faith completely at the service of those liberating themselves from the superstructure which obscures the authenticity of its face”).

In his conclusive reply, however, Ratzinger specifies that his “thought coincides with Professor Ricca’s” (30 Days, p. 72) with regard to “the word essentialize”. We must truly return to the heart of the matter, to the essentials, or put differently, the problem of our times is the absence of God, and thus our greatest duty as christians [Catholics and non–catholics together — F.R.] is to bear witness to the living God.” (30 Days, p. 73). To be sure, as christians of all (or almost) denominations would probably agree about this one point, the existence of God, and “the reality of the final judgment and of eternal life” (p. 73). This “compelling factor” necessarily “unites”, because “all Christians are united in faith through which God has revealed Himself, incarnate in Jesus Christ” (30 Days, p. 73). (For the condemnation of this idea of bearing common witness to the faith, see Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos).

7. Reciprocal Purification

But how will this continual “essentialization” come about? For Ratzinger, this positive process originates with the other “churches”. The Catholic Church would thus be continually purified…by heretical sects…so for now, while we await the pluriformous unity of the future, it is good that we have some (reconciled) diversity.

Ratzinger continues:

Oportet et hæreses esse, says St. Paul. Perhaps not all of us are ready yet for unity, and we need a sort of thorn in our side, provided by the diversity of the other, to awaken us from a divided and splintered Christianity. Perhaps it is our duty to be a thorn in each other’s side. There is a duty to let oneself be purified and enriched by the other…Even at this moment in history where God has not given us perfect unity, we acknowledge one another, our brothers in Christ, the sister churches, we love each other’s community, we meet in a process of divine education in which the Lord uses the different communities for each other’s good, to make us capable and worthy of definitive unity.

(30 Days, p. 68)

Thus, according to Ratzinger, God supposedly wills that “heresies” exist. (In fact, He only permits their existence, as he permits that of evil.) Hence, for Ratzinger, God wills at this time the divisions within Christianity, its different communities, for one perfects the other. Hence the Catholic Church would be “revived”, “purified”, “enriched”, and no longer “divided”, thanks to the heretical sects of which the Lord makes use. And conversely, the Catholic Church would interact in the same manner with the other churches, and have the same effect upon them. All are in the dialectical march towards the indefinite future unity of a Church yet unknown which will result from this process.

The primitive Church, according to Ratzinger, is a model for this future church, but nothing more. It was united “in the three fundamental elements: Sacred Scripture, the rule of faith, and the sacramental structure of the Church” (30 Days, p. 66), and, as far as the rest is concerned, it was most diverse. Was it not also united in submission to the magisterium and the papacy? Did it not have the same faith, something which is not the case with Protestants and “Orthodox”?

Ratzinger is asking us to adhere to an unknown church of the future modeled after a falsified picture of the ancient Church, so that in actuality, we will abandon the eternal and immutable Church of Christ.

Conclusion: Pius XI judges Ratzinger.

If Ratzinger does not know towards what sort of future these “thorn—in—the—side” churches are heading while they “essentialize” one other, Pius XI will tell him. The Pope spoke in the encyclical Mortalium Animos, which Ratzinger dared to declare in conformity with Vatican II.

• “The ecumenical or pan–christian movement leads to naturalism and atheism”, and prepares “a self-styled christian religion which differs like night and day from the unique Church of Christ.
• “It is the avenue to the neglect of religion, to indifferentism, and to modernism.”
• “It is stupidity and foolishness.”

(Mortalium Animos)

But let us not pin all of the blame on Ratzinger, for he is merely a faithful interpreter of Vatican II, as is Karol Wojtyla. This latter individual is the alien body who must be expelled from the Church, the spouse of Christ, and whom the forces of sanity in the Church will undoubtedly reject. As for us, we wish to belong to the Catholic Church and not to the heterodox phantom church of unity through diversity, cooked up by Oscar Cullmann and his heterodox disciple Joseph Ratzinger.

https://www.lastampa.it/vatican-insider/en/2015/02/26/news/ecumenism-according-to-ratzinger-pluriform-unity-1.35297507

It is crystal clear that the modern Popes do not hold the Faith once delivered nor do they believe Unity exists despite their public reiteration of  The Creed.

Do we have Unity, Yes or No?

YES. That is what the Catholic Church teaches and that is our creed.

The Marks Of The Church

The distinctive marks of the Church are also to be made known to the faithful, that thus they may be enabled to estimate the extent of the blessing conferred by God on those who have had the happiness to be born and educated within her pale.

"One'

The first mark of the true Church is described in the Nicene Creed, and consists in unity: My dove is one, my beautiful one is one. So vast a multitude, scattered far and wide, is called one for the reasons mentioned by St. Paul in his Epistle to the Ephesians: One Lord, one faith, one baptism.

Unity In Government

The Church has but one ruler and one governor, the invisible one, Christ, whom the eternal Father hath made head over all the Church, which is his body; the visible one, the Pope, who, as legitimate successor of Peter, the Prince of the Apostles, fills the Apostolic chair.

It is the unanimous teaching of the Fathers that this visible head is necessary to establish and preserve unity in the Church. This St. Jerome clearly perceived and as clearly expressed when, in his work against Jovinian, he wrote: One is elected that, by the appointment of a head, all occasion of schism may be removed. In his letter to Pope Damasus the same holy Doctor writes: Away with envy, let the ambition of Roman grandeur cease! I speak to the successor of the fisherman, and to the disciple of the cross. Following no chief but Christ, I am united in communion with your Holiness, that is, with the chair of Peter. I know that on that rock is built the Church. Whoever will eat the lamb outside this house is profane; whoever is not in the ark of Noah shall perish in the .flood.

The same doctrine was long before established by Saints Irenaeus and Cyprian. The latter, speaking of the unity of the Church observes: The Lord said to Peter, I say to thee, Peter! thou art Peter: and upon this rock I will build my Church. He builds His Church on one. And although after His Resurrection He gave equal power to all His Apostles, saying: As the Father hath sent me, I also send you, receive ye the Holy Ghost; yet to make unity more manifest, He decided by His own authority that it should be derived from one alone, etc.

Again, Optatus of Milevi says: You cannot be excused on the score of ignorance, knowing as you do that in the city of Rome the episcopal chair was first conferred on Peter, who occupied it as head of the Apostles; in order that in that one chair the unity of the Church might be preserved by all, and that the other Apostles might not claim each a chair for himself; so that now he who erects another in opposition to this single chair is a schismatic and a prevaricator.

Later on St. Basil wrote: Peter is made the foundation, because he says: Thou art Christ, the Son of the Living God; and hears in reply that he is a rock. But although a rock, he is not such a rock as Christ; for Christ is truly an immovable rock, but Peter, only by virtue of that rock. For Jesus bestows His dignities on others; He is a priest, and He makes priests; a rock, and He makes a rock; what belongs to Himself, He bestows on His servants.

Lastly, St. Ambrose says: Because he alone of all of them professed (Christ) he was placed above all.

Should anyone object that the Church is content with one Head and one Spouse, Jesus Christ, and requires no other, the answer is obvious. For as we deem Christ not only the author of all the Sacraments, but also their invisible minister ­­ He it is who baptises, He it is who absolves, although men are appointed by Him the external ministers of the Sacraments ­­ so has He placed over His Church, which He governs by His invisible Spirit, a man to be His vicar and the minister of His power. A visible Church requires a visible head; therefore the Saviour appointed Peter head and pastor of all the faithful, when He committed to his care the feeding of all His sheep, in such ample terms that He willed the very same power of ruling and governing the entire Church to descend to Peter's successors.

Unity In Spirit, Hope And Faith

Moreover, the Apostle, writing to the Corinthians, tells them that there is but one and the same Spirit who imparts grace to the faithful, as the soul communicates life to the members of the body. Exhorting the Ephesians to preserve this unity, he says: Be careful to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace; one body and one Spirit. As the human body consists of many members, animated by one soul, which gives sight to the eves, hearing to the ears, and to the other senses the power of discharging their respective functions; so the mystical body of Christ, which is the Church, is composed of many faithful. The hope, to which we are called, is also one, as the Apostle tells us in the same place; for we all hope for the same consummation, eternal and happy life. Finally, the faith which all are bound to believe and to profess is one: Let there be no schisms amongst you, says the Apostle. And Baptism, which is the seal of our Christian faith, is also one.

Why don't the modern Popes teach the truth?

Is it because they know that if they teach the truth the great ecumenical game is over, along with all of the meetings, the warm fuzzy feelings, the public praise for false religions etc?

Yeah, that's what I think.